RE: CPU Affinity, was RE: [Zope] Linux vs. UNIX vs. BSD
Sigh... I always thought Solaris was an exercise in feature-broken command line tools (want to try unpackaging Zope without GNU tar anyone) ;) The first thing most sysadmins do is make Solaris act/look more like Linux by installing boatloads of GNUish tools (bash,gcc,vim,tar,gzip), so if all that is left is a kernel, it sort of defeats the point of the hassle (assuming you could get the same with one build of a patched Linux kernel). Unless patching and/or replacing all of user-space is easier than a kernel build? Perhaps if Sun adapted Debian's APT to support its pkg format (about as likely as typing 'apt-get install msword' on my Windows box, I'd say)... Sean -----Original Message----- From: Tim Hoffman [mailto:timhoffman@cams.wa.gov.au] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:09 PM To: sean.upton@uniontrib.com Cc: myzope@gmx.net; zope@zope.org Subject: Re: CPU Affinity, was RE: [Zope] Linux vs. UNIX vs. BSD Thats what Solaris is for ;-) Processor affinity, processor sets, fair share scheduler etc.... Rgds Tim On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 07:51, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
This sounds better (and I think this is more advanced that the stuff RedHat is doing, using Ingo Molnar's work in the O2 scheduler), because it is (and should be) in this case simply a sysadmin task to make sure your Zope instances (and all the processes tied to a particular instance) is bound to the same CPU.
This would also be nice in the case of being able to use a single SMP box to run a ZEO cluster within using UNIX sockets for communication, and binding your ZEO clients (and the ZSS) to respective processors.
Sean
-----Original Message----- From: Oliver Bleutgen [mailto:myzope@gmx.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 3:01 PM To: sean.upton@uniontrib.com Cc: zope@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope] Linux vs. UNIX vs. BSD
sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
Though we haven't used it yet, as I understand it, CPU affinity is important to Python performance on SMP machines. I expect that we will write or find a simple user-space utility utilizing the new system calls to bind a group of processes to a single CPU. I think, in theory, this will allow us to successfully run two Zope instances on an inexpensive 2CPU machine, each instance bound to a respective CPU.
Heh, since I was looking at the page today, if you're talking about Robert Loves
work, you can find it here: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/cpu-affinity/
Very nice, since they have a proc-interface, so all you need is echo.
I haven't tested it, but it sounds nice.
cheers, oliver
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Hi Sean Ok, I'll bite ;-) (I am biased though, I worked for Sun for 7 years in the 90's) The fact is many of the gnu tools predate much of linux, and I would suggest many of them where actually developed on sunos and solaris ;-) They all share the same heritage. But yes you are correct, many of the gnu tools are pretty much mandatory on any Unix installation. But having said that, each time I upgrade redhat on my notebook, I end up installing an enormous bunch of additional stuff, that redhat don't include on the CD's/standard distribution. I use linux and solaris and both have areas which they could improve mightily on. On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 21:44, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
Sigh... I always thought Solaris was an exercise in feature-broken command line tools (want to try unpackaging Zope without GNU tar anyone) ;) The first thing most sysadmins do is make Solaris act/look more like Linux by installing boatloads of GNUish tools (bash,gcc,vim,tar,gzip), so if all that is left is a kernel, it sort of defeats the point of the hassle (assuming you could get the same with one build of a patched Linux kernel).
Actually there is a bunch of stuff in the core solaris, in areas of process control, tuning, which linux doesn't come close too etc.. also solaris doesn't require things like kernel rebuilds when you add you drivers/hardware, which makes me stay with solaris over linux in many production server cases. The basic gnuish tools as you put it, aren't the be all and end all of the OS. I do lament the slower mhz rating and the apparent slower running of python, due to lower mhz. My last dig, is I still believe (personal experience) the hardware is far more stable than the average intel kit installed ;-)
Unless patching and/or replacing all of user-space is easier than a kernel build? Perhaps if Sun adapted Debian's APT to support its pkg format (about as likely as typing 'apt-get install msword' on my Windows box, I'd say)...
I am pretty sure the solaris pkgfmt is being replaced, in the not too distant future. See ya Tim (SunBlade 100, 768MB, A1000 diff-scsi (hardware raid), Expert3D Lite, PGX64, SunPCI (win2000) card, Oracle Server 8i, LDAP Server, Apache, 5 instances of Zope, 2 using ZEO, ThoughtWeb Java based Knowledge Server, running simultaneous KDE/Gnome/CDE Control panels, with KDE window manager on one screen, and dtwm (CDE window manager) on the other ;-)
Sean
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Hoffman [mailto:timhoffman@cams.wa.gov.au] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:09 PM To: sean.upton@uniontrib.com Cc: myzope@gmx.net; zope@zope.org Subject: Re: CPU Affinity, was RE: [Zope] Linux vs. UNIX vs. BSD
Thats what Solaris is for ;-) Processor affinity, processor sets, fair share scheduler etc....
Rgds
Tim
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 07:51, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
This sounds better (and I think this is more advanced that the stuff RedHat is doing, using Ingo Molnar's work in the O2 scheduler), because it is (and should be) in this case simply a sysadmin task to make sure your Zope instances (and all the processes tied to a particular instance) is bound to the same CPU.
This would also be nice in the case of being able to use a single SMP box to run a ZEO cluster within using UNIX sockets for communication, and binding your ZEO clients (and the ZSS) to respective processors.
Sean
-----Original Message----- From: Oliver Bleutgen [mailto:myzope@gmx.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 3:01 PM To: sean.upton@uniontrib.com Cc: zope@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope] Linux vs. UNIX vs. BSD
sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
Though we haven't used it yet, as I understand it, CPU affinity is important to Python performance on SMP machines. I expect that we will write or find a simple user-space utility utilizing the new system calls to bind a group of processes to a single CPU. I think, in theory, this will allow us to successfully run two Zope instances on an inexpensive 2CPU machine, each instance bound to a respective CPU.
Heh, since I was looking at the page today, if you're talking about Robert Loves
work, you can find it here: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/cpu-affinity/
Very nice, since they have a proc-interface, so all you need is echo.
I haven't tested it, but it sounds nice.
cheers, oliver
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Am Don, 2002-08-22 um 03.22 schrieb Tim Hoffman:
Hi Sean
Ok, I'll bite ;-) (I am biased though, I worked for Sun for 7 years in the 90's) Well I'm biased too :) (I've been into the Linux thing since 1992, when I had to monopolize the only public Internet terminal at the university for days to download dozens discs, ...)
The fact is many of the gnu tools predate much of linux, and I would suggest many of them where actually developed on sunos and solaris ;-)
They all share the same heritage.
But yes you are correct, many of the gnu tools are pretty much mandatory on any Unix installation.
But having said that, each time I upgrade redhat on my notebook, I end up installing an enormous bunch of additional stuff, that redhat don't include on the CD's/standard distribution. Well, than it's your fault for choosing Redhat. SuSE or Debian provide a much more complete set of packages. Redhat has always been a more core OS business ;)
I use linux and solaris and both have areas which they could improve mightily on. Probably. ;)
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 21:44, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
Sigh... I always thought Solaris was an exercise in feature-broken command line tools (want to try unpackaging Zope without GNU tar anyone) ;) The first thing most sysadmins do is make Solaris act/look more like Linux by installing boatloads of GNUish tools (bash,gcc,vim,tar,gzip), so if all that is left is a kernel, it sort of defeats the point of the hassle (assuming you could get the same with one build of a patched Linux kernel).
Actually there is a bunch of stuff in the core solaris, in areas of process control, tuning, which linux doesn't come close too etc.. also Well, that I cannot dispute. OTOH there are quite a number of patches that support quite "enterprise"-level functionality. solaris doesn't require things like kernel rebuilds when you add you drivers/hardware, which makes me stay with solaris over linux in many Well, that's pure bullshit. With modern distributions you are even warned not to rebuild your kernel, unless you really know what you are doing. ;) production server cases.
The basic gnuish tools as you put it, aren't the be all and end all of the OS. No, but it's curious how some people try anything to get them. Witness the Windows guys with cygwin :)
I do lament the slower mhz rating and the apparent slower running of python, due to lower mhz. Slower MHz rating?
My last dig, is I still believe (personal experience) the hardware is far more stable than the average intel kit installed ;-) Well your sentence implies thate there also not so average intel kits available. And considering the fact that Sun Hardware is also a bit above the price of the average intel kit, it might more fair to compare expensive Intel server style hardware with Sun hardware than cheap standard boxes shanghaied into the server room :)
Andreas
Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
My last dig, is I still believe (personal experience) the hardware is far more stable than the average intel kit installed ;-)
Well your sentence implies thate there also not so average intel kits available. And considering the fact that Sun Hardware is also a bit above the price of the average intel kit, it might more fair to compare expensive Intel server style hardware with Sun hardware than cheap standard boxes shanghaied into the server room :)
Andreas
And who said that you can run linux only on cheesy intel servers. If you really want stable hardware, point the sun guys to http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/os/linux/ They'll be thankful ;-)))) SCNR, oliver
participants (4)
-
Andreas Kostyrka -
Oliver Bleutgen -
sean.upton＠uniontrib.com -
Tim Hoffman